COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
In Re: Groton-Dunstable Regional School District BSEA #06-0890
DECISION
This decision is issued pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 USC 1400 et seq.), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 USC 794), the state special education law (MGL c. 71B), the state Administrative Procedure Act (MGL c. 30A), and the regulations promulgated under these statutes.
A hearing was held on December 4, 5, 6, and 8, 2006 in Worcester, MA before William Crane, Hearing Officer. Those present for all or part of the proceedings were:
Student’s Mother
Student’s Father
Phoebe Adams Learning Specialist in private practice
William Mautz Pediatric Neuropsychologist in private practice
Lynne Brant Speech-Language Pathologist in private practice
Susan Palmer Language Arts Teacher, Carroll School
Anne Lowell Head of Lower School, Carroll School
Jane Young Speech-Language Pathologist, Carroll School
Karen Postal Neuropsychologist in private practice
Kathleen Schott 1st Grade Teacher, Groton Dunstable Regional School District (RSD)
Gail DesBois Special Education Teacher, Groton-Dunstable RSD
Nancy Halleran Speech-Language Pathologist, Groton-Dunstable RSD
Patricia Ascione Guidance Counselor, Groton-Dunstable RSD
Ann Morrison School Psychologist, Groton-Dunstable RSD
Doris Sirois Team Chairperson, Groton-Dunstable RSD
Bonnie Dinsmore Assist. Principal (formerly Team Chairperson), Groton-Dunstable RSD
Betty Lavin Groton Dunstable RSD
Joan Endicott Director of Pupil Personnel Services, Groton Dunstable RSD
Joseph Green Attorney for Parents and Student
Karen Laufer Attorney for Groton Dunstable RSD
Dawn Halcisak Court Reporter
The official record of the hearing consists of documents submitted by the Parents and marked as exhibits P-1 through P-127; documents submitted by the Groton-Dunstable Regional School District (School District) and marked as exhibits S-1 through S-90 (except for S-39 because a more legible copy of this exhibit is included within the Parents’ exhibits); and four and one-half days of recorded oral testimony and argument. As agreed by the parties, oral closing arguments occurred on December 14, 2006, and the record closed on that date.
INTRODUCTION
Student is eight years old (date of birth 6/23/97). She lives with her Parents in Groton, Massachusetts. Groton is located within the Groton-Dunstable Regional School District. Student is enrolled in the 3rd grade at the Carroll School. The Carroll School, located in Lincoln, Massachusetts, is a private school for learning disabled children.
Student is engaging, likeable, curious, and eager to learn. She has a complex and pervasive language-based learning disability that effects her receptive and expressive language.[1]
Through 1st grade, Student attended the public schools in Groton, receiving pull-out and inclusion services to address her language and other deficits. Beginning in the summer of 2005 (immediately following 1st grade), Parents unilaterally placed their daughter at the Carroll School. Parents have continued their daughter’s placement at Carroll to date.
Parents have brought this action to obtain reimbursement of their expenses for placement at Carroll for the 2nd and 3rd grade school years and for the summers of 2005 and 2006. Parents also seek prospective placement at Carroll.
For the reasons explained below, I conclude that Parents are entitled to prospective placement at the Carroll School and are entitled to partial reimbursement for 3rd grade (beginning November 3, 2006). Parents are not entitled to reimbursement for 2nd grade, the first portion of 3rd grade (through November 2, 2006), or the summers of 2005 and 2006.
ISSUES
The issues to be decided in this case are the following:
- Are the three individualized education programs (IEPs) for the 2005-2006 and the 2006-2007 school years reasonably calculated to provide Student with a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment?
- If not, can additions or other modifications be made to the current IEP in order to satisfy this standard?
- If not, would placement at the Carroll School satisfy this standard?
- Are Parents entitled to reimbursement of educational expenses for the 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 school years, as well as for the summers of 2005 and 2006?
- Are Parents entitled to a current IEP placing their daughter at the Carroll School?
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This initial statement of facts provides an introductory chronology of events, leaving the specific decisional facts to be discussed in the Findings and Conclusions section, below.
2002-2003 school year (first year of kindergarten)
During the 2002-2003 school year, Student attended kindergarten at the Boutwell School in Groton. Student attended two half-day programs. The IEP for the period 6/14/02 to 6/14/03 included special education pull-out services of speech-language therapy and social skills services, as well as summer services. Class support was to be provided by a learning disability (LD) specialist for 60 minutes, five times per week. The IEP was accepted, in full, by Parents. Testimony of Parent; exhibits P-21, P-22
In October 2002, the School District conducted occupational therapy and educational assessments. The educational assessment concluded that Student was making slow progress in the general curriculum. Testimony of Parent; exhibits P-23, P-25, S-1.
In April 2003, the IEP Team met to develop a new IEP. The IEP for the period 4/16/03 to 4/16/04 is similar to the previous IEP, discussed above, except that summer services were not included. Parents accepted the placement but neither accepted nor rejected the other parts of the IEP. Exhibits P-29, S-8.
2003-2004 school year (second year of kindergarten)
Because Student was not ready (socially or academically) to advance to 1st grade, Student repeated kindergarten, this time in a full-day program pursuant to the IEP for the period 4/16/03 to 4/16/04. Testimony of Parent; exhibit S-2.
In October 2003, Student’s kindergarten teacher (Ms. O’Brien) wrote Parent that Student was probably in the top third of the class academically. Progress reports were also provided under the IEP. Exhibits P-32, P-39, P-41, P-45, S-2, S-4, S-10, S-11, S-12.
In October and November 2003, William Mautz, PhD conducted an independent neuropsychological evaluation at Parents’ request and paid for by the School District. Dr. Mautz found that Student had a variety of learning difficulties, and recommended that Student be placed into a substantially-separate language-based classroom for the 2004-2005 school year. Testimony of Mautz, exhibits P-31, S-5.
In November 2003, Barbara Gordon, MS, CC/SLP, conducted a speech-language evaluation due to concerns that Student’s language-based skill deficits may be impacting her academic learning. Ms. Gordon reported weakness in phonological access and storage, and recall and retrieval of phonological information, and she recommended that Student be placed in a small, language-based structured school program in which language learning and support are present throughout the day across tasks. Exhibits P-38, S-6.
In February 2004, it was apparent to the School District that Student was not making the progress that would be expected of a child who was repeating kindergarten and who had begun the school year in the upper 1/3 of her class. By February, Student was in the bottom 1/3 of her class academically. Testimony of Dinsmore.
On March 3 and 14, 2004, Gail Cahill, EdD, completed an informal assessment of Student. In a memo received by the School District on March 29, 2005, Ms. Cahill wrote that after conducting her assessment and after reviewing the reports of Dr. Mautz and Ms. Gordon, she “strongly agree[s] with their findings that [Student] exhibits red flags for dyslexia and a language based learning disability that would affect language comprehension, reading, spelling and written language.” She recommended continuing the Wilson Language Program for the sequencing of skills and materials. Exhibits P-42, S-25, S-59.
On March 9, 2004, the School District sent Parents a proposed amendment to the IEP for the purpose of increasing speech-language services from two sessions per week to three sessions per week because “[Student] had been diagnosed with a language-based learning disability.” The amendment also stated that teachers would consult with a reading specialist to implement a “science-based reading program” such as Lindamood Bell “or other multi-modal approaches,” and that Student would work with the reading specialist directly on a weekly basis to work on a “multi-modal reading program.” At the March meeting, it was agreed that Dr. Cahill would be hired by the School District to provide reading instruction to Student since the School District did not have an instructor certified in a science-based reading program. These amendments were initiated in response to the evaluations that had been completed by Dr. Mautz and Ms. Gordon. Testimony of Dinsmore; exhibits P-44, S-21.
From April through June 2004, Dr. Cahill provided Student with reading instruction one day each weekend, for a total of fourteen hours. In addition, Dr. Cahill provided three sessions during the summer of 2004. These services were paid for by the School District. Testimony of Parent; exhibits P-52, S-23, S-24, S-34.
On April 27, 2004, the IEP Team met to prepare an IEP for the remainder of kindergarten, the summer and the first three-quarters of 1st grade. The proposed IEP reflected the following services:
· Dr. Cahill’s services during the 2003-2004 school year (described above);
· 2004 summer services for one month, consisting of
- speech-language therapy for 30 minutes, twice per week,
- academic support for 30 minutes, twice per week, and
- reading services for 60 minutes, twice per week;
· four hours per week of special education services within the regular education classroom; and
· four hours per week of special education pull-out services.
The IEP was for the period 4/27/04 to 4/27/05. It was accepted, in full, by Parents. Testimony of Dinsmore; exhibits P-50, S-26, S-29, S-32.
During the summer, placement for 1st grade was changed to the Prescott School so that Student would be able to work with Susan Palmer, a School District reading teacher who was certified in Orton Gillingham reading instruction. Testimony of Dinsmore; exhibit S-31.
2004-2005 school year (1st grade)
During the 2004-2005 school year, Student attended 1st grade at the Prescott Elementary School in Groton pursuant to the accepted IEP for the period 4/27/04 to 4/27/05, described above.
FIRST IEP IN DISPUTE: On March 16, 2005, the IEP Team met to prepare an IEP for the remainder of 1st grade, the summer of 2005, and the first three-quarters of 2nd grade. The proposed IEP reflected 2005 summer services (six weeks of reading services for 45 minutes, three times per week); six and three-quarter hours per week of special education services within the general education classroom; and five hours per week of pull-out special education services. The IEP called for continued placement at the Prescott School. The IEP was for the period 3/16/05 to 3/16/06. The IEP and placement were accepted, in full, by Parents on April 20, 2005. Testimony of Parent, Sirois, Endicott; exhibit P-64.
Although the IEP was for a period of one year, the language arts pull-out services on the IEP were listed only from 3/16/05 to the end of the 1st grade year (6/28/05). Ms. Sirois testified that the School District did not intend to end these services. Once this was brought to the School District’s attention, the School District expected to determine what language arts pull-out services should be provided in 2nd grade. Testimony of Sirois; exhibit S-47.
With respect to the summer services, Parent testified that at the March 2005 Team meeting, she was told that the School District did not know the identity of the summer teacher or whether the teacher would be certified in Orton Gillingham or the Wilson Reading program.
By letter of June 5, 2006, Parents requested that the School District provide their daughter with the Carroll School Summer program. When the School District declined to do so, Parents rejected the School District’s proposed summer services on June 9, 2005, taking the position that their daughter needed a comprehensive, language-based approach, rather than the proposed in-district summer services. On approximately June 11, 2005, the School District advised Parents that Gail DesBois would be the summer program teacher. Ms. DesBois is certified in the Wilson Reading program. Parents had already made a commitment to the Carroll School that their daughter would attend the Carroll summer program. Testimony of Endicott, Parent; exhibits P-67, P-71, S-50, S-51, S-54, S-55, S-58, S-59, S-60.
Ms. Endicott responded to Parents by letter dated June 14, 2005, explaining that the School District believed that its proposed summer program was appropriate for Student. The letter noted that the summer services would be 135 minutes per week for five weeks of 1:1 services from a Wilson certified teacher. Testimony of Parent; exhibits P-68, S-55.
Parents unilaterally placed their daughter at the Carroll School for the summer of 2005.
In July 2005, Parent observed her daughter “blossoming” at the Carroll summer program, coming home extremely happy and gaining self-confidence regarding her reading ability. These changes in their daughter caused Parents to re-consider their acceptance of the School District’s IEP. Parent asked her daughter where she would like to go to school; Student responded that she would like to attend 2nd grade at Carroll because Carroll was teaching her to read. On July 29, 2005, Parents decided to send their daughter to Carroll School for 2nd grade. Parent testified that she had been convinced by Student’s success within the Carroll School summer program that her daughter should switch to Carroll for 2nd grade. Testimony of Parent.
By letter of August 5, 2005, Parents rejected the School District’s proposed IEP for the period 3/16/05 to 3/16/06, objecting to the decrease (from 1st grade) of the pull-out support services from the LD specialist for language arts. By letter of August 11, 2005 to Parents, the Carroll School accepted Student for 2nd grade. By letter of August 11, 2005, Parents rejected the School District’s proposed IEP and placement for the period 3/16/05 to 3/16/06, taking the position that their daughter needed more than an increase in the time spent by the LD specialist. The letter also explained that Parents would be taking their daughter out of the School District, privately placing her at the Carroll School, and seeking reimbursement from the School District. Ms. Endicott responded by letter to Parents, suggesting that the Team reconvene to work together to try to resolve Parents’ concerns. Testimony of Parent, Sirois; exhibits P-75, P-76, P-77, S-62 S-65, S-66.
2005-2006 school year (2nd grade)
Parents unilaterally placed their daughter at the Carroll School for 2nd grade.